[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68723: Fix process launch failure on FreeBSD after r365761

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rGa42942e0ecd6: Fix process launch failure on FreeBSD after r365761 (authored by dim). Herald added a project: LLDB. Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68723?vs=224447=224460#toc

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68723: Fix process launch failure on FreeBSD after r365761

dim updated this revision to Diff 224447. dim added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: jfb. Convert `m_(monitor|operation)_thread` to `llvm::Optional<>`. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68723/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68723 Files:

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68723: Fix process launch failure on FreeBSD after r365761

devnexen added a comment. In D68723#1703379 , @MaskRay wrote: > In D68723#1703322 , @devnexen wrote: > > > @dim I LGTMed this but would it a real issue for you to take on a less > > disruptive approach proposed by

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68723: Fix process launch failure on FreeBSD after r365761

MaskRay added a comment. In D68723#1703322 , @devnexen wrote: > @dim I LGTMed this but would it a real issue for you to take on a less > disruptive approach proposed by MaskRay ? I think we should do what @labath suggested (changing Expected to

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68723: Fix process launch failure on FreeBSD after r365761

devnexen added a comment. @dim I LGTMed this but would it a real issue for you to take on a less disruptive approach proposed by MaskRay ? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68723/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68723 ___

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68723: Fix process launch failure on FreeBSD after r365761

devnexen added a comment. In D68723#1703098 , @MaskRay wrote: > In D68723#1703051 , @devnexen wrote: > > > LGTM otherwise. > > > I don't think this change should be reverted. It can just be repaired by > adding

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68723: Fix process launch failure on FreeBSD after r365761

labath added a comment. I don't think having Expected members is a reasonable thing to do. If we want to keep the notion of validity explicit (which is consistent with the direction lldb is moving in), then I think the members should be Optional. The initialization code can take the Expected

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68723: Fix process launch failure on FreeBSD after r365761

MaskRay added a comment. In D68723#1703051 , @devnexen wrote: > LGTM otherwise. I don't think this change should be reverted. It can just be repaired by adding some `(void)!xxx;` CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68723/new/

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68723: Fix process launch failure on FreeBSD after r365761

devnexen accepted this revision. devnexen added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LGTM otherwise. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68723/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68723 ___ lldb-commits mailing

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68723: Fix process launch failure on FreeBSD after r365761

devnexen added inline comments. Comment at: source/Plugins/Process/FreeBSD/ProcessMonitor.cpp:733 // Finally, start monitoring the child process for change in state. - m_monitor_thread = Host::StartMonitoringChildProcess( + auto monitor_thread =

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68723: Fix process launch failure on FreeBSD after r365761

MaskRay added a comment. This was probably due to: Expected(Error Err) : HasError(true) #if LLVM_ENABLE_ABI_BREAKING_CHECKS // Expected is unchecked upon construction in Debug builds. , Unchecked(true) #endif { assert(Err && "Cannot create Expected

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68723: Fix process launch failure on FreeBSD after r365761

dim added a comment. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68723/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68723 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits